RE: Fox News - When push comes to shove?

[kitkat65]

Is now the time to up the ante up and start a push to boycott all advertisers, not just on the Glen Beck show, but all time slots?

I don't see this as a free speech issue but one of truth in advertising especially when it comes to the slogan "Fair and Balanced."

It would be one thing if FOX came straight out and said they have a conservative and ideological slant and admit to reporting from that angle. I'd be fine with that. But they really cross the line with the out-and-out promoting of the teabaggers and 9/12 events. A news organization has no business manufacturing discord while reporting it then calling themselves a journalism outlet, PERIOD.

SOCIALISM BAD. CAPITALISM GOOD. The Fox mantra.

Wouldn't it be a delicious irony if the system of capitalism turned out to be the one thing able to reveal Fox for what it is? Use the free market system to withdraw financial support to companies that support FOX. Your basic rule of Supply (propaganda) and Demand (no, thank you, and here's why). Would anyone step in to aid a failing network? I know Rupert is richer than God but who would be willing to come to their aid?

All I want say to Fox and Friends is, I don't want to take away your freedom of speech, just stop pretending your a news organization and tell me the real reasons behind the things you say.

And, by the way, the fact that other news organizations are coming to the defense of Fox just makes me question their integrity as well.

[HughMoran]

1. Fox must be destroyed

They are everything bad in this country - if a boycott will destroy them, then we must boycott.

[bbinacan]

3. Is that you Hugo?

:eyes:

[HughMoran]

5. Haha - you're a Fox news fan

:eyes:

[bbinacan]

6. I'm a fan of the press

and am not a fan of anyone who tries to shut out dissent. It just shows their weakness.

[kitkat65]

8. So Fox is now the champion of dissent?

Strange how their ideals change depending on the players. I appreciate your concern for journalism but doesn't propaganda disguised as journalism degrade what you say you champion?

[bbinacan]

28. How does one define

what is propaganda and what is journalism? It seems that journalism is only what fits into your narrow view. Sort of a "my way or the highway attitude".

[kitkat65]

51. I don't even know where to begin . . .

So expecting a new organization to follow certain ethical principles in reporting is a narrow view? Advocacy journalism has a place but you can't necessarily call it "Fair and Balanced."

When one news organization continually frames their news in such a way to ALWAYS favors a particular group or candidate and against their competitors, I would call that propaganda. I consider it propaganda when an news organization continually demonizes certain groups that do not agree with their world view such as Fox does with Democrats, liberals, Acorn, etc. I consider it propaganda when facts and quotes are cherry-picked in order to provoke an emotional or base response from viewers. And, I consider it propaganda when a news organization creates an event and covers it as a populist movement.

Your right, I guess that is pretty narrow. Silly me and my pesky expectations.

"Does Obama make God cry? We'll cover that and more about the coming Socialist state at eleven!"

[bbinacan]

52. That's a two-way street.

Think about other "news organizations".

[kitkat65]

53. Don't be cryptic. You're obviously trying to imply something.

Just say it.

[bbinacan]

54. The Nixonian way

was to attack the WP and the NYT. The last thing a President should do is to stoop to a cat fight with the press. The others have supported FOX because they fear they could be next. If they dare question anything, they may receive the wrath of the government and you, of course.

edit to add: You should read Jefferson's thoughts on the press.

[kitkat65]

61. I understand your point about needing the press to be free

I just don't think Fox falls under the caetegory of "free" as Jefferson envisioned it and here's an interesting piece I just came across that explains it a lot better than I can.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/archive/2009/10/20/what-s-your-beef-with-fox-mr-dem-basher.aspx

A couple of snips:

"I guess there are two distinct axes on which you can judge press organizations--actually, there are many more than two (see below), but two are important here: 1) Neutrality--Are they attempting to be "objective," trying to serve the "public interest" in some balanced way, or are they ideologically (or otherwise) driven in a way that inevitably colors their coverage--what topics they pick, what 'experts' they rely on, etc. 2) Independence--Whether they are biased or generally neutral, can somebody--a political party, a Mafia family, a government-- tell them what to do?"

"I think Fox is also not neutral (which, again, doesn't bother me) but it's also not independent (which does). This isn't because it's owned by Rupert Murdoch--moguls are, typically among the more independent sorts. It's because it's run by Roger Ailes. I have zero faith that Ailes is independent of the Republican party or, specifically, those Republicans who have occupied the White House recently--the Bushes. As I said, I think if Karl Rove called Ailes in 2003 and said "We don't want so much coverage of X" it's extremely likely that X would not be covered on Fox. A ... suggestive example of Fox's loyalty is the debate on immigration, in which Ailes' network initially seemed to try valiantly--against the beliefs of most of its audience--to push the Bush White House line in favor of "comprehensive" legalization (while brushing aside its viewers' views)."

Again, I understand your point about the fine line of the press being called out and denied access for their reporting. I think what makes the Fox situation unique is that Fox is solely run by Roger Ailes a man with a past as a Republican political operative who aided in the campaigns of Nixon and the elder Bush. Is he still acting in the role political operative? If he is, fine, admit it and let's move on, but don't pretend to be fair and balanced.

If Fox's concerns about Obama came from a consistent background of reporting about threats to the constitution, etc. I would be more apt to cut them some slack. But there were none of these concerns from Fox when Bush was in the WH. Quite the opposite. They colored people who questioned the actions of Bush's WH as terrorist-loving, America haters. The double standard is painfully obvious. They advocate for only for a specific group.

As of late, I think Fox has really crossed the line by ratcheting up their rhetoric against Obama by implying he's a Manchurian candidate intent on destroying America. They throw out words like socialism, oligarchy, and marxism like curse words without actually explaining what those actually mean. They call him a racist. What makes this dangerous and irresponsible is there is a certain population that actually believes this without question. Fox plays on fear and is more intent on whipping these viewers up into a frenzy and play to their viewers most base instincts. There are plenty of other conservative outlets out there doing the same thing such as the recent article (can't remember the site) advocating for a military coup.

Is this is a good fight for the White House to pick? I don't know. But as a private citizen, why should I have to support it or condone it? This isn't just about Obama. Fox has made it quite clear what they think of ME as a liberal Democrat by demonizing me and devaluing me as part of group. Why should I stand by quietly and tolerate an organization that would never tolerate me?

Fox is free to report as it wants. But I have freedoms as well I and I don't have to support businesses that support Fox.

[HughMoran]

10. FOX IS NOT NEWS!!!

Dear fucking god - what makes you think Faux is "news"??!!

[kitkat65]

7. Can you honestly sit there and tell me Fox is a legitimate news organization

with journalistic integrity? And nice touch lumping someone in with Hugo. That's actually a trick used by Fox.

[bbinacan]

11. I don't believe I lumped

you in with Hugo. That was a response to the "brilliant" reply by HughMoran. Appropriate name don't you think? That commenter has already put me on ignore. So much for debate. Don't tow the line and.....

[HughMoran]

13. Heh, you are attacking me while I can still see you?

You really shouldn't do that - you lover of Fox news - also known as "Nazi News".

:eyes:

[HughMoran]

14. My user-ID bothers you because it makes fun of right-wing morons?

Hmmmm - very interesting....

[bbinacan]

19. You seriously need to chill. n/t

[HughMoran]

21. I need to chill? Who implied that my ID made ME into a moran?

Huh?

[bbinacan]

24. You chose it and it fits.

Think about this. If Fox is that influential, how did Obama and the Democrats win in a landslide? The Administration is becoming very Nixonian in their paranoia, and so are many on DU.

[HughMoran]

26. I've been saying the same thing for 5 years here

I've been stating that we should boycott Faux from the beginning.

They are dangerous - they must be destroyed. They are NOT a news organization. I can't comprehend any right-thinking liberal not wanting to take them down.

[bbinacan]

30. "Right Thinking"?

That in of itself is a scary phrase.

[HughMoran]

31. I figured a simple-minded person would use that phrase as an out for not responding

Watching MSNBC now showing how Faux "news" has been acting as a propaganda machine long long long before Obama said anything.

Watch and learn.

[bbinacan]

34. Are you back?

The last time I heard the phrase "right thinking" was in the movie Field of Dreams. Beulah, who wanted to ban books used this stupid phrase.

[HughMoran]

36. Can't answer why you support Fox - pick on a single phrase

It's the sign of a failed argument and a poor-sport loser.

[bbinacan]

45. I'm sorry, I forgot you were there.

I was just reading Jefferson on the freedom of the press. He was attacked brutally by them and yet defended them. Here's a quote or two for you.

"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:57

"The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:491

And my favorite.

"The most effectual engines for are the public papers... government always a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper." --Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785. (*) ME 5:181, Papers 8:632

You may go now. Oh, and leave that shotgun.

Name the movie.

[Biker13]

59. The Movie Is "Tombstone"...

The first sentence is Doc Holliday speaking to the character played by Billy Bob Thornton. The second is Wyatt speaking to Thornton.

One of my favorite movies.

[bbinacan]

62. Bingo.

Great movie. :toast:

[bbinacan]

2. The other news organizations are

afraid they'll be next. They did the right thing. Nixon tried this crap.

[bobbolink]

4. "other news organizations are coming to the defense of Fox "

Thom Hartmann had a good bit about that.... about the Good Ole' Boys Network.

He said by the time they get to that level, they are rich and totally out of touch.

He put it out very well. It shouldn't be surprising.

[GMA]

9. Take out Fox

and some other "news organization" will be next. Never, never, never should we silence a voice, whether we like it or not.

[bbinacan]

12. Excellent point.

Where have we seen this attitude before? Chavez comes to mind.

[HughMoran]

16. You love Nazi-news

Very funny!

[bbinacan]

18. I thought you put me on ignore.

:evilgrin:

[HughMoran]

20. Oh, did I say that?

I don't see anything... :evilgrin:

[HughMoran]

15. It's not a "voice"

We really don't need that shit - it's not a "voice", it's pure unadulterated HATE-SPEECH.

[GMA]

27. Oh, come on--

be a grown up. That's just silly. It's no more hate speech than the spanking the right takes on Olbermann or Maddow's shows every night.

[HughMoran]

29. No, they do this hate-speech during the day on their so-called "hard news" shows

They are not news and anybody who thinks different is brainwashed.

[GMA]

33. lol...

that was kind and thoughtful! Where are the footnotes? Happy Friday all!

[HughMoran]

35. Did you watch the 5 minute segment on KO now showing Fox propaganda over the past year?

It was something to behold - anybody who thinks this is a "voice" that need to be preserved is anti-American.

[GMA]

38. Laughing again!

Now, see, when you site KO as a source, that's just funny. Gotta love him, but he's got the biggest ax in the world of opinion to grind!

[HughMoran]

39. KO is not on tonight

You'd know that if you weren't busy watching Faux "news" when I told you to turn it on.

If you think that film-clips of Faux spewing boatloads of propaganda isn't legitimate because of who put the footage together, then you're far more out-of-touch than I thought.

[GMA]

44. Didn't get the message that I had to turn on my tv.

I'd already seen that Laurence O'Donnell was covering for KO and tuned out. Are you over 18? And--totally showing that I'm a newbie--I don't know what n/t means. I'm assuming it's an insult.

[HughMoran]

46. n/t no text

it was an excellent segment - so much propaganda, so much hypocrisy.

[GMA]

48. thanks...

[kitkat65]

17. I never said silence them. I was very specific about not wanting to quell

free speech. I just want them to be honest about their intentions and whether they are reporting out of ideology or the drive to be, as they say, "Fair and Balanced."

Do you think it's ethical for a news organization to organize public protests in order to report them?

[movonne]

23. I think any news program that tries to have our president killed should

be taken out...I don't care how right wing they are it is when they try to stir up violence then they should be stopped..

[HughMoran]

32. Apparently this DUer supports a propaganda outlet that wants to see Obama assassinated

This person is :crazy:

[GMA]

40. And the hits just keep coming.

So if I don't think fox should be silenced, that means I must want the President assassinated? Not only is that personally insulting, I haven't heard anything more than hearsay that anyone on fox ever expressed a desire to see the President of the United States dead. I believe, as well, that when you say things like that you add fuel to a fire that needs water, not gasoline. Let's be grownups.

[HughMoran]

41. Yes

You are supporting the enemy by sticking up for Faux "news" and attacking Keith Olbermann.

[GMA]

42. I did not attack Keith.

I'm generally fond of him. But he has "a point of view". He's not a "journalist", he's a commentator, just like his competition. If you want a view as devoid of subjectivity as possible about someone, you don't go to the person who dislikes him the most. You'll definitely get a point of view, which you can add to your overall picture, but it's going to be colored. Same thing for the other side. It's nice to get info from fans, but that'll give you slanted point of view, too.

[HughMoran]

43. Well, I have no issue having alternate voices on as non-Fuax stations do

Faux has no balance at all - it's all propaganda, all the time.

[GMA]

47. So there's the balance.

Like I said before, give people credit for being able to sort things out and think for themselves. Let's have all the voices, and let them be strong and vibrant.

Most of the posts I'm seeing here tonight don't strike me as coming from people who've ever ventured into alternate sources of info. Makes for boring people. But that isn't an insult! I'm saying it with a smile.

[HughMoran]

49. I took my money to another bank because they wouldn't stop showing Faux in the lobby

I almost puke and get violently angry when I'm around people who are so brain-dead that they sit around having their heads filled with hate every day - and they believe the bullshit - believe it or not!!

I have lost friends over Faux "news". I know what's on there and it makes me sick to my stomach that such un-American hate is allowed to pass for "news" to a nation of "Morans". (Hugh Moran is a funny take on some of the moronic signs held up at right-wing rallies if you're not aware).

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paulsby]

56. it's the typical response from those that have no argument

and no respect for free speech

i believe an accused murderer has a right to a lawyer. even if he's obviously guilty as fuck

that doesn't mean that i LIKE murderers, or approve of what they did.

but that's what the previous poster is trying to do.

i agree with the ACLU that the nazis had the right to march in skokie.

that doens't mean i am DEFENDING NAZIS

it means i believe in freedom

you counter bad speech with good speech

don't let all the people here who disrespect the concept of free speech and dissenting voices bring you down.

for many people "dissent is american" doesn't apply when it's faux ninnies who are dissenting

in their case, it's HATE speech and INCITING VIOLENCE and needs to be eliminated

[bbinacan]

37. What evidence do you have

of this assertion?

[paulsby]

55. exactly

the best response to bad speech is good speech. not stifling the bad speech

that is such a fundamental element of the american way, of TRUE liberalism, etc.

voltaire said it best

[Kansas Wyatt]

22. FOX (FAUX) Should Be Flooded With Completely Made Up Bogus Crap...

That even the most Radical Wing Nut would start to question them.

Like... Obama signed a deal with Radical Christian Muslim Space Aliens to enslave people that drive pick-ups. Okay, the 'morans' might actually believe that one, but you get the idea.

But my point is, with the way FAUX will report anything about Democrats, before they even bother with the truth, they could actually blow themselves up. To the point where only their most Rabid Wing Nuts would believe them about anything.

They just need to be flooded with completely bogus crap, because we all know that they would be pissing themselves to air it as soon as they could. So much bizarre disinformation, that they actually fall into their own 'conspiracy nut' trap.

[movonne]

25. They already have the radical nuts..

[Libertas1776]

57. Faux News

is a propaganda machine that is inciting violent right wing extremism. Plain and simple. They are one of the greatest threats to this nation's stability right now.

[ShadowLiberal]

58. The problem is there's just too many advertisers on all of Fox for that to work

I believe I saw a similar post to yours over a year ago saying we need to boycott Fox, it then proceeded to list something like 30+ large businesses all over the US, and how the heck are you supposed to remember which 30 businesses to not shop at? Besides that, I think all of the big names in a few industries, like hardware stores (Lowe's, Home Depot) were both on the list, and I don't know about you, but I rarely see a small business hardware store around here in PA.

The pressure needs to increase on Fox from something really controversial, similar to Beck's "Obama is a racist towards White people" remark, such as other news organizations starting to regularly bash Fox and it's creditability as a news organization on nonCable channels.

[KharmaTrain]

60. And The Boycotts Have Worked How?

I've long had a boycott against faux...it's blocked out on the teevees here. I'm even loathe to turn on their over-the-air network to watch football or Family Guy (I'll watch the reruns instead).

We've seen that a boycott is a wonderful concept, but rarely effective...especially against a large corporation. faux noise is just one arm of a large animal...thus if you're going to boycott, then you just can't target the "news" channel but the entire corporation. Best of luck with that considering you'd have to educate people to all the various subsidiaries Murdoch owns...from satellite teevee to publishing houses.

And as we've seen with the boycott against Dreck, he's still spewing his bile even with no sponsors. All Rupert does is moves money from one corporate pocket to another.

The crux of the problem isn't faux, it's the other corporates who pass along their lies and talking points...and they must be constantly called into account when they pass around the propaganda. As I've stated in other posts, the corporates see this as an attack on their domination of "news"...a battle of egos.